Yes, most of us have realised that. Why was it ok for one developer and not for another?
Of course, a re-convening of the EDDC wokring group that was supposed to look into the relationship between the council and the East Devon Business Forum might well have answered such questions ….. yet another reason why it remains in the long grass …
Readers will recall that in September 2013 the planning application by Clinton Devon Estates for 40 houses in King Alfred’s Way, Newton Poppleford was recommended for approval by EDDC Planning Officers and subsequently approved by the DMC
In October 2013 a planning application for the adjacent site Badgers Close was, however, recommended for refusal by EDDC Planning Officers. It was refused by the DMC and the subsequent appeal, by the applicant, to Her Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate also failed. (In each case EDDC Planning Officers argued very differently
An application on the same site has been resubmitted, rebranded as “Little Orchard” see application 14/2174.
With regard to the previous Badger Close application EDDC planning officers noted that Newton Poppleford lacks employment opportunities, giving rise to the necessity to commute to work. They considered that the village should only accommodate a limited scale of development, as defined by its built-up area boundary.
The Planning Inspector also concluded that the Badger Close appeal site did not represent a sustainable location for the proposed development. The decisive argument turned on access to the village centre. The Inspector noted that the poor quality of the pedestrian linkages between the appeal site and the village’s main services and facilities represented a serious failing. Those who know Newton Poppleford will know that there is no simple “Section 106” agreement solution to this
The site is also only 300m outside the 400m building exclusion zone that surrounds the Pebblebed Heaths. As we have mentioned before on this blog, the Heaths are not only an SSSI and within the AONB but have European designations under which EDDC has a legal duty to protect from any increased recreational use as a result of nearby development. On this subject the Inspector deferred to the view of Natural England. So it is interesting to see the Natural England consultee comment on this new application 14/2174.
These seem to have profound consequences for all developments within 10Km of the Heaths and indicate that EDDC has been in breach of its legal duties which appear to be much tougher for a European designation than for an AONB or even the protection UK gives to its World Heritage Sites
Key sections of this comment are
“The East Devon (Pebblebed) Heaths SAC / SPA are c. 700m from the application site. This is in the 10km zone within which impacts of residential development on the SPA could reasonably be expected to arise in the absence of appropriate mitigation: Evidence submitted with your “Submission Draft Local Plan” – the Habitats Regulations Assessment (Nov 2012) and the draft “South East Devon European Sites Mitigation Strategy” (June 2013) – both indicate that it would not be possible to reach a conclusion of “no likely significant effect” for housing in this location, in combination with other residential development close to the site, in the absence of appropriate mitigation. …
In the case of the European sites referred to a above, your authority cannot grant permission for this proposal in the absence of a Habitat Regulations Assessment which concludes either i) no likely significant effect due to mitigation included by the applicant or, ii) no adverse effect on integrity following an Appropriate Assessment.”
What we are supposed to get are alternative natural green space sites (SANGS).
So, EDDC, where are these or have they all been given planning permission?
An extraordinary revelation by Cllr Ken Potter at last night’s Newton Pop parish council meeting.
He said in his report that he attended a recent meeting of the Local Government Association to discuss the future of post offices.
The meeting was addressed by a minister who predicted that within ten years “there would not be a single free-standing district council left”.
Several astonished members of the public tried to ask why, then, was EDDC planning to spend many millions building a new HQ, but the Chair moved on to discuss Himalayan balsam in the Otter.
Newton Pop District Councillor Ken Potter must be regretting his invitation to the unfortunate Ray Bloxham to explain EDDC’s decision to reduce public speaking at council meetings.
Cllr Bloxham, architect of the controversial new restrictions, struck completely the wrong note. He blamed verbose public speeches for endless DMC meetings. He argued EDDC were much more generous than other councils in time allowed, and concluded that ,anyway, the chance for a few people to speak was “the icing on the cake” of a long planning process!
Several Newton Pop councillors and residents couldn’t wait to get their teeth into the speaker. They expressed angry distrust of the planning system. The impression given at DMC meetings was that many applications were “predetermined”, they said. Public comments were ignored. The management and chairing of planning meetings was abysmal. Councillors waffling and repeating each other were the real time-wasters.
Finally asked one resident, “What is the point of your coming here tonight when the decision has been taken already?”
Poor Ray could only stammer something about it only being an experiment for a year. Any gamblers at NP last night wouldn’t have put good money on it lasting that long.
From our correspondent:
Councillor Potter has now asked Councillor Ray Bloxham to address the Parish Council this coming Monday 29th September on the issue of public speaking. This is what the agenda says:
“Cllr Ray Bloxham, Corporate Business Portfolio Holder will speak on public
speaking at meetings of EDDC, at the request of Cllr Potter. He will however arrive late, due to another meeting”.
Recall that Cllr Bloxham was the person who lead the vote to restrict public speaking at EDDC. During the EDDC debate he read out the full report of recommendations which councillors had already received in written format. After much debate in the meeting, with many councillors repeating themselves and agreeing and repeating the points of others, the Chair asked Councillor Bloxham to summarise his points. He proceeded to go over the entire report again, giving a perfect example of why DMC meetings are so long. He demonstrated perfectly that some councillors have no understanding of the term’summarise’ or indeed the phrase ‘I have nothing to add to the report you have already read’. However the majority of councillors then voted to heavily restrict the right of the public to speak to them for no more than 3 minutes each.
Quite why councillors Potter and Bloxham are so keen to discuss the matter now the vote has taken place I am not sure, but if you would like to ask them that question, come along to Monday nights Parish Council meeting in Newton Poppleford. 8.00 PM in the Village Hall.
Public speaking for the first 15 minutes but I will request standing orders
are suspended when Cllr Bloxham has addressed the meeting if there are
further questions.”
The East Devon Pebblebed Heath, owned by Clinton Devon Estates, near Newton Poppleford is an SSSI:
Wonder if he knows the unkind things happening to the village?
This frequently-asked question comes up yet again, in one of the latest raft of letters sent to the Sidmouth Herald (1st August 2014), this time concerning the planned King Alfred Way development.
‘Newton Poppleford is well known for its traffic problems especially near the exit to King Alfred Way (KAW) where the pinch point restricts the movement of traffic on a busy road. Residents of KAW have to park in the road and children play in the area but EDDC in their wisdom are planning for Clinton Devon Estates to build a new estate of 40 houses and the supposed doctors surgery and to have entry right through this road. At the top of KAW is a footpath (Farthings Lane) which gives people from the west of the village a safe passage into the village but especially the children who now have a safe walk to school, missing the pinch point of the busy A3052. When 40 houses and the supposed Doctors surgery are built, a road will be put across this footpath taking away the only safe way for the children to get to school. There are safer places to build the much needed affordable houses in the village. Why don’t EDDC listen to the 400 people who say no more traffic for the High Street in Newton Poppleford?’
Judith Cullip
See also http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/08/04/developers-offer-of-a-surgery-not-so-sweet/
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/08/04/eddcs-double-standards-at-newton-poppleford/
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/07/28/so-eddc-didnt-spot-extraneous-and-unlawful-planning-inducement-in-planning-app/
The King Alfred Way (KAW) controversy has been mired by other serious issues. A parish councillor (who had spoken out against the development) was reported to the police apparently by an unnamed person. The police dismissed the allegations against the councillor as totally groundless.
Many will recall that a charge of breach of Code of Conduct against the same parish councillor, brought to the attention of a special Standards Sub-Committee by the Monitoring Officer (now replaced), resulted in considerable time and public money being spent, only for the charge to be found so weak as not to warrant any action. http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/05/17/no-sanctions-to-be-taken-against-cllr-graham-salter/
N.B. The SIN blog http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com has a considerable archive on the relevant Parish Council meetings e.g. http://sidmouthindependentnews.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/another-month-another-chaotic-planning-meeting-at-newton-poppleford/
That’s how the Sidmouth Herald summed up Gill Cameron-Webb’s letter (Opinion, 1st August, 2014) about EDDC planning procedure at Newton Poppleford.
Thank you to Gill for sending the text of her letter, as follows:
‘Developers make such massive profits from housing developments that they’re often willing to sacrifice some profit to provide ‘sweeteners’ to persuade councils to look favourably on their application. This can result in corruption, so planning laws prevent developers from ‘buying planning permission’. These demand that any ‘sweeteners’ provided by developers must be in proportion to their development. As the Doctors Surgery promised as part of the KAW development could service a population of 5300 (3 times the population of Newton Pop) it’s massively disproportionate to the KAW development.
When EDDC councillors first demanded that the doctors surgery be made a condition of the KAW development, Planning Officers failed to advise them that this was unlawful and that the developers can never be forced to deliver it. Although residents repeatedly warned EDDC of this illegality over 5 months, EDDC persistently refused to acknowledge it until a Judicial Review forced them to quash the planning permission.
The key benefit of the Judicial Review was to ensure councillors were properly advised of planning law next time they considered the KAW application in May 2014. At this stage EDDC officers and councillors should have treated KAW as a major development of 40 houses in an AONB which had received 382 formal objections from the public. They should have dealt with it exactly the same as the Badger Close development and rejected it for the same reasons they rejected Badger Close. Instead they chose to authorise KAW in the hope that the developers might keep their ‘promise’ to deliver a Doctors Surgery that they can never legally enforce.
If Newton Poppleford ends up with 40 houses and no Doctors Surgery, the blame will lie entirely with EDDC planning officers and Councillors for accepting the word of a developer on a hope and a prayer.’
Local residents continue to expose serious flaws in EDDC’s conduct regarding plans for Newton Poppleford. For the record, one is described in this letter from Lorna Dalton, recently published in the Sidmouth Herald (July, 2014).
‘In Sept 2013, EDDC authorised a major development at King Alfred Way in Newton Poppleford without considering whether the environmental impact should be assessed, despite being legally obliged to do so. For five months they ignored residents who pointed out their error until a Judicial Review at last forced them to reconsider their approach.
In May 2014 EDDC wrote a report which acknowledged:
– “The site lies within the East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
– on best and most versatile agricultural land
– the Pebblebed Heaths SAC/SPA and SSSI are located within 700m.
– this environment constitutes a highly sensitive receptor to impacts arising from pollution and recreation
– it has the potential to be viewed from across the village and from a wider area given the natural topography the proposed development rising beyond the
boundary of the existing built form.”
Having listed numerous reasons which should’ve demanded an Environmental Impact Assessment, EDDC instead came to the conclusion that none was required! So when EDDC told last weeks Herald that they had ‘corrected their error, what they actually did was to abandon a highly sensitive environment to a major development without any assessment of the destruction.
Although EDDC decided not to assess the environmental impact of KAW, one of their reasons for rejecting the Badger Close proposal was because it had not carried out an assessment. I have to question why EDDC dealt with these two developments so differently when the two sites are within 200 yards of each other and share the same environmental attributes?
EDDC stated that they would defend their approach and they believe they’ve corrected their error. As another 2 hectares of beautiful countryside looks set for destruction, I suspect that the majority of Newton Pop residents would not agree with them.’
Today’s Sidmouth Herald has this letter on the subject, from Newton Poppleford resident, Emma Coppell
‘I note that EDDC state that they can “only hope” that the proposed doctors’ surgery at Newton Poppleford will be built following the recent judicial review of the King Alfred Way planning approval. In fact, relying on hope is all they could ever have done, as that is all the law allows.
To be clear, a planning obligation offering such a blatant inducement is not simply against the wishes of a group of troublemakers or NIMBYs, as EDDC would have people believe, but against the law. Developers’ offerings can only offset the direct impact of the development, otherwise the council is powerless to force the developer to provide them. This was always the case, it has not arisen from judicial review. Such a basic premise ought to have been known by planners, yet they told the committee otherwise.
Second time around, following judicial review, councillors were expressly told that the doctors’ surgery could not be enforced. The planning committee chose to trust in nothing more than a verbal promise to build a surgery, and therefore voluntarily submitted themselves to the ‘hope’ about which they now complain, putting themselves at the mercy of the developer’s whims. This is no way to conduct planning decisions; common sense dictates that a community benefit should only influence the decision if the developer is guaranteed to provide it.
Instead of blaming residents for ‘causing’ this outcome, it is about time that EDDC recognised both the spirit and the letter of the law, and acknowledged their own shortcomings in dealing with this application. The most tragic aspect of this whole sorry episode is that it represented an opportunity for the council to hold their hands up, acknowledge their mistake and learn from it. It is now clear that they intend to continue to do whatever suits them, even if this contravenes the law. Their dogged determination to apportion blame elsewhere at all costs would be laughable were it not such an affront to the idea of integrity in public service. ‘
Newton Poppleford resident Mark Coppell is one of many who wonders where the blame lies. Below is his letter to the Sidmouth Herald (23 July 2014).
Sir
I write in response to EDDC’s recent statement that the judicial review relating to the planning permission granted at King Alfred Way, Newton Poppleford, was conceded despite no fault being apportioned to the Council itself. Having first-hand experience of EDDC’s internal investigative procedures I am not in the least bit surprised they have reached this conclusion.
However, it would be interesting to know precisely whose fault do EDDC consider it to be that an extraneous and unlawful planning inducement was included in the draft Section 106 agreement before the application was heard at committee? Whose fault was it that, during the planning meeting, the council accepted the offer of a unilateral undertaking of the surgery, a form of planning obligation governed by the same regulations that made provision via section 106 unlawful?
The committee and legal team were recorded discussing making approval “subject to demonstration of a mechanism” to secure something, in full knowledge that it could not legally be secured. It was resolved to word the approval vaguely such that “everybody knows what needs to be done (provision of the surgery) but without making that issue (it being unlawful) raise its head”. If that was not the council’s fault, then who is to blame?
Even more curiously, if the council truly believed they had not erred and their position was defensible, who authorised the decision not to contest the judicial review, thereby costing £11k of taxpayers’ money?
Once again, in their statement, EDDC have adopted a defensive attitude towards the electorate, and are trying to absolve themselves of blame for their planning advice and decision-making being legally unsound. This whole episode suggests that the council are not sufficiently familiar with the regulations that govern planning matters and made a genuine but extraordinary mistake. The alternative explanation is that they have a flagrant disregard for such things when they interfere with awarding planning permission to a major landowner in whose thrall they appear to exist. I am not sure which option worries me to a greater extent.
District council planning and legal departments appear to be regulated either within house, or by those who once were in the profession. As a result they are effectively self-regulatory. Little wonder then, that they find it difficult to admit any wrong doing on their part as they are seldom held to account. It would appear the only regulation they are subject to is when legally challenged by members of the public, and this is only feasible for those with access to large funds of money. The loss of £11k to the taxpayer is highly regrettable and was utterly avoidable on EDDCs part. However, the risks taken by the public when challenging unlawful decisions are far greater proportionately and as such are not taken lightly. It was hoped that at the very least EDDC might offer some contrition and resolve to amend their practices in future. Alas not.
All in all this represents yet another shameful episode in EDDC’s recent history.
Matt Coppell
This week’s Sidmouth Herald has 6 critical letters about our council:
One letter from Paul Freeman about the missing 6,000 (plus) voters missing from the electoral roll and finding the “explanation” from EDDC very wanting
One about how our council is mired in bureaucracy in spite of the major party’s pledge to “cut red tape”
One about the upcoming court case between EDDC and the Information Commissioner about EDDC’s refusal to release documents in spite of the Information Commissioner’s request that it should be published
Two about the omnishambles of planning and development in Newton Poppleford where a reason to allow one development was turned on its head to refuse another and where EDDC did not find it necessary to have an Environmental Impact Assessment on the Clinton Devon Estates site in spite of it being beside an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
One about the inability of the council to improve access the Byes even though they own the land which could allow improvements
Add the item about EDDC “restricting free speech” at its meeting and another item about voting for funding for £15,000 of sports cash has been delayed twice because EDDC felt that not enough old people and not enough young people had voted in the previous two rounds and it just hasn’t been a good week for our council.
No sooner had the Inspector rejected the appeal for development in Badger Close than another developer has tossed his hat into the ring (application 14/1303/FUL for Downs Close).
This application involves a site opposite Badger Close, outside the built up area boundary of the village, inside the AONB and even closer to the Pebblebed Heaths. As explained in previous blogs EDDC has a legal duty to protect this European designated site of environmental significance from the impact of future development. In fact the site lies only 100 metres outside the 400 metre total exclusion zone that surrounds the heaths.
Not only that but it involves the destruction of an old mature orchard. This Orchard because of its importance is recognised and recorded via a survey on the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species website. http://www.ptes.org.
The planning inspector rejected the Badger Close appeal largely on the grounds of its impact on the AONB and on sustainability grounds. He concluded that the appeal site did NOT represent a sustainable location for the proposed development. The crunch argument turned on access to the village centre. The Inspector noted that the poor quality of the pedestrian linkages between the appeal site and the village’s main services and facilities represented a serious failing.
The Parish Council and EDDC ward Councillor, Ken Potter, have both made submissions saying they cannot support this application and there are many very eloquent objections from the public. At least one of these is illustrated with site images and EDDC has ensured that these can be viewed online. The question is just how much weight will be given to these objections.
We all know the priority given within the NPPF to favouring sustainable development and the lack of clarity surrounding just what is meant by this woolly term. In this application great emphasis is placed on its sustainable credentials by the incorporation of low flush toilet cisterns, plastic plumbing requiring no solvent based adhesives or solder, low energy light bulbs throughout, high levels of insulation, and locally sourced materials etc.
In a seven page decision paper dated 11 June, the Planning Inspector dismissed the Badger Close appeal against planning refusal for an indicative 46 houses in Newton Poppleford. This is welcome news coming hard on the heels of our report that Newton Poppleford faces yet another new planning application.
The Inspector’s decision paper presents important, and in places complicated, arguments which EDA experts have tried to simplify.
The main issues were: (a) whether the appeal site represented a sustainable location for the proposed development; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the area’s character and appearance, bearing in mind the site’s location in the East Devon AONB and, more specifically, have the exceptional circumstances for granting permission for major developments in AONBs been demonstrated?
Does the appeal site represent a sustainable location?
The Inspector concluded that the appeal site did not represent a sustainable location for the proposed development. The crunch argument turned on access to the village centre. The Inspector noted that the poor quality of the pedestrian linkages between the appeal site and the village’s main services and facilities represented a serious failing.
Character and Appearance – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Since the proposed development would be approximately 5% of the size of the existing settlement, the Inspector concluded that in the context of the village, and in the light of the scheme’s visibility from a main approach road, it would be a significant addition. Under these circumstances (NPPF para 116) major development should only be granted in AONBs in exceptional circumstances.
The Inspector considered that the appeal scheme would result in a substantial adverse impact in the short, medium and long term in respect of a number of viewpoints. The first of these viewpoints is of particular significance, as it relates to an important approach into the village. As such, he concluded that the area’s character and appearance would be unacceptably harmed, to the detriment of the natural beauty of the AONB.
Nature Conservation
The appeal site lies within 700m of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths. EDA has already drawn attention to the fact that these sites are so special that EDDC has a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur from increased recreational demand as a result of new developments.
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/05/08/the-pebblebed-heath-who-cares/
Natural England continued to object to the proposal on the grounds of uncertainty about the likely delivery of a mechanism to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of these sites.
EDDC, however, claimed that progress had been made in one important mitigation strategy: the identification of suitable alternative natural greenspaces for public access. EDDC claimed that specific sites had now been identified and a delivery officer would be appointed. Provision for a contribution to the estimated £20M total cost of mitigation [something akin to a 106 agreement] had also been agreed by the developer. [In EDA’s report referenced above we pointed out that in 2013 EDDC had granted planning permission on a site previously identified as a suitable alternative greenspace – so when are we going to be told where these sites are?].
Overall Conclusion
The appeal scheme represents a major development in an AONB and within the NPPF planning permission should therefore be refused except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the scheme is in the public interest. The Inspector noted the development’s contributions to meeting general and affordable housing needs would represent positive benefits. However, the AONB does not extend over the whole of East Devon District and, as such, there are likely to be opportunities to meet District-wide needs in locations that do not adversely affect the AONB.
A strategy broadly along these lines is proposed in the replacement Local Plan (the New East Devon Local Plan), which has recently been subject to examination. However, given the interim findings of the [Local Plan] Inspector, little weight can be attached to the housing targets contained in that document. Furthermore, concerns were raised by the [Local Plan] Inspector regarding the Council’s assessment of the ability of small towns and villages to accommodate growth.
Nevertheless, bearing in mind, first, that it is an underlying principle of the NPPF that patterns of growth should be actively managed to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable and, second, that the NPPF attaches great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, the Inspector considered that his conclusions on the two main issues in this appeal were sufficient to overcome the advantages that would result in respect of the provision of general and affordable housing. The exceptional circumstances that are required by the NPPF for granting permission within an AONB have not therefore been demonstrated.
This is an all too rare example of AONB protection being upheld.
Footnote
Along the line EDDC, in defending its decision to refuse permission for Badger Close, had argued that Newton Poppleford lacks employment opportunities, giving rise to the necessity to commute to work. It considered that the village should only accommodate a limited scale of development, as defined by its built-up area boundary, on economic sustainability grounds.
Previously, in recommending granting outline planning permission to Clinton Devon Estates for the King Alfred Way development, which involves a similar number of houses, EDDC had argued differently. In this case EDDC noted the potential for new jobs to be created, both through construction work and through the increased numbers of residents in Newton Poppleford supporting local businesses! [At this point EDA feel it appropriate to point out that this argument could be used to claim all developments of this scale were economically sustainable].
The appeal document is here
http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2211701&coid=41024
A warning to all Estates who think they can build wherever they want:
“Mr Rees, who has lived in Penshurst for 22 years, said: “There is a subtext to this which is not only about the way that things were done in private as much as possible by the council: they have spent huge amounts of public money on fighting this, and they spent a huge amount of money, and our time, protecting the first planning application, which they didn’t even bother to defend.”
He said that the community who hoped to save their rural landscape were not the only people affected by the wrangling: “Had they sat down with the community in Penshurst and discussed where to put these houses it would have helped. By now because Forge Field has been held up as the only possible place, people have been waiting for housing for four years.
http://www.slcc.co.uk/news-item/governance-and-accountability-for-local-councils/768/
A few of our town and parish councillors and clerks might need a refresher here – Ottery, Talaton and Newton Poppleford spring to mind.
The sheer variety and volume of writing inspired by our local area is behind the idea for a new book, Literature and Landscape in East Devon, to be published later this year.
As announced at last Friday’s hugely entertaining East Devon Writing event, original, relevant, high quality photographs are now being sought for inclusion in the book. Please see PHOTO COMPETITION on the EDA Home page, for precise information.
For a flavour of the forthcoming book, see the following list compiled by Mike Temple of Sidmouth (N.B. only some examples from the list will be included!) the-literature-of-east-devon-by-location . Another ‘taster’ is Robert Crick’s sharply humorous view on the Napoli shipwreck, Cargoes
East Devon Watch 